User login
I previously shared my concerns about the compromises some physicians are making when they consent to practicing in a telemedicine arrangement in which the system’s technical limitations prevents them from obtaining information critical to making an accurate diagnosis. In the scenarios that I described, a physician would have great difficulty being a good steward of antibiotic usage if he were willing to make a diagnosis of otitis media or strep throat without access to tympanic membrane visualization or the results of a rapid strep test.
In response to my observation, I received an email from Dr. Kenneth McConnochie, a name out of my deep past from when we were teammates in college. Now a professor of pediatrics at University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, Dr. McConnochie has studied telemedicine in primary care extensively. He has thought a lot about telemedicine and more specifically about how it relates to quality. As he pointed out to me,
I suspect that like me, whenever you look at an article or study that has “telemedicine” in its title or headline, you are never sure what you’re going to be reading about. Is it going to be a discussion of telephone triaging in a suburban primary practice or will the article describe how a pediatric cardiologist in Anchorage can follow his little patients in the Aleutians via an audio/video hookup that provides him with the ability to auscultate and review electrocardiograms and radiographic images? Dr. McConnochie suggests that by using the broader term “connected care” for care that is delivered at a distance, and by clearly specifying different types or levels, we will be one big step closer to a more meaningful way to understand the usefulness of that care.
In the conceptual framework he proposes, level 1 is text-only care because it offers the physician the least capacity for the acquisition of (1) diagnostically relevant information and (2) interpersonal connection. Phone care can provide more and videoconferencing still more. Level 4 would be what Dr. McConnochie labels “information rich” care providing the most abundant capacity. Here, think of an arrangement in which someone at the patient’s end of the connection has been trained to use an electronic otoscope that can capture an image of the child’s tympanic membrane, an electronic stethoscope that can record heart and breath sounds, and a high resolution camera to capture images of the patient’s skin, throat, and eyes, then transmit them to the child’s electronic health record (EHR) in real time. Someone in the school or day care center where the child spends his day has been taught how to obtain and process a rapid strep test. The physician who has instant access to the child’s EHR can communicate “face to face” via teleconferencing with the day care providers and with the parent who is at work to discuss the diagnosis, treatment plan, and follow-up. If any of the parties feels the exchange of information is insufficiently robust, a traditional office visit can be arranged.
The challenge of assigning value to each level care still remains. Is the level 4 scenario I just described as valuable as a face to face traditional office visit? In some situations, it is likely to be more valuable than a visit with a physician in an urgent care clinic or emergency department who has never seen the patient and/or lacks access to the EHR because her computer doesn’t interface with the primary care physician’s EHR. It certainly may be more convenient for the family.
But who is going to assign value? A connected visit may be more efficient for the patient and the parent, but will it be more costly? And who is going to pay? Dr. McConnochie’s observations should be taken seriously by those folks who assign value and pay.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I previously shared my concerns about the compromises some physicians are making when they consent to practicing in a telemedicine arrangement in which the system’s technical limitations prevents them from obtaining information critical to making an accurate diagnosis. In the scenarios that I described, a physician would have great difficulty being a good steward of antibiotic usage if he were willing to make a diagnosis of otitis media or strep throat without access to tympanic membrane visualization or the results of a rapid strep test.
In response to my observation, I received an email from Dr. Kenneth McConnochie, a name out of my deep past from when we were teammates in college. Now a professor of pediatrics at University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, Dr. McConnochie has studied telemedicine in primary care extensively. He has thought a lot about telemedicine and more specifically about how it relates to quality. As he pointed out to me,
I suspect that like me, whenever you look at an article or study that has “telemedicine” in its title or headline, you are never sure what you’re going to be reading about. Is it going to be a discussion of telephone triaging in a suburban primary practice or will the article describe how a pediatric cardiologist in Anchorage can follow his little patients in the Aleutians via an audio/video hookup that provides him with the ability to auscultate and review electrocardiograms and radiographic images? Dr. McConnochie suggests that by using the broader term “connected care” for care that is delivered at a distance, and by clearly specifying different types or levels, we will be one big step closer to a more meaningful way to understand the usefulness of that care.
In the conceptual framework he proposes, level 1 is text-only care because it offers the physician the least capacity for the acquisition of (1) diagnostically relevant information and (2) interpersonal connection. Phone care can provide more and videoconferencing still more. Level 4 would be what Dr. McConnochie labels “information rich” care providing the most abundant capacity. Here, think of an arrangement in which someone at the patient’s end of the connection has been trained to use an electronic otoscope that can capture an image of the child’s tympanic membrane, an electronic stethoscope that can record heart and breath sounds, and a high resolution camera to capture images of the patient’s skin, throat, and eyes, then transmit them to the child’s electronic health record (EHR) in real time. Someone in the school or day care center where the child spends his day has been taught how to obtain and process a rapid strep test. The physician who has instant access to the child’s EHR can communicate “face to face” via teleconferencing with the day care providers and with the parent who is at work to discuss the diagnosis, treatment plan, and follow-up. If any of the parties feels the exchange of information is insufficiently robust, a traditional office visit can be arranged.
The challenge of assigning value to each level care still remains. Is the level 4 scenario I just described as valuable as a face to face traditional office visit? In some situations, it is likely to be more valuable than a visit with a physician in an urgent care clinic or emergency department who has never seen the patient and/or lacks access to the EHR because her computer doesn’t interface with the primary care physician’s EHR. It certainly may be more convenient for the family.
But who is going to assign value? A connected visit may be more efficient for the patient and the parent, but will it be more costly? And who is going to pay? Dr. McConnochie’s observations should be taken seriously by those folks who assign value and pay.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I previously shared my concerns about the compromises some physicians are making when they consent to practicing in a telemedicine arrangement in which the system’s technical limitations prevents them from obtaining information critical to making an accurate diagnosis. In the scenarios that I described, a physician would have great difficulty being a good steward of antibiotic usage if he were willing to make a diagnosis of otitis media or strep throat without access to tympanic membrane visualization or the results of a rapid strep test.
In response to my observation, I received an email from Dr. Kenneth McConnochie, a name out of my deep past from when we were teammates in college. Now a professor of pediatrics at University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, Dr. McConnochie has studied telemedicine in primary care extensively. He has thought a lot about telemedicine and more specifically about how it relates to quality. As he pointed out to me,
I suspect that like me, whenever you look at an article or study that has “telemedicine” in its title or headline, you are never sure what you’re going to be reading about. Is it going to be a discussion of telephone triaging in a suburban primary practice or will the article describe how a pediatric cardiologist in Anchorage can follow his little patients in the Aleutians via an audio/video hookup that provides him with the ability to auscultate and review electrocardiograms and radiographic images? Dr. McConnochie suggests that by using the broader term “connected care” for care that is delivered at a distance, and by clearly specifying different types or levels, we will be one big step closer to a more meaningful way to understand the usefulness of that care.
In the conceptual framework he proposes, level 1 is text-only care because it offers the physician the least capacity for the acquisition of (1) diagnostically relevant information and (2) interpersonal connection. Phone care can provide more and videoconferencing still more. Level 4 would be what Dr. McConnochie labels “information rich” care providing the most abundant capacity. Here, think of an arrangement in which someone at the patient’s end of the connection has been trained to use an electronic otoscope that can capture an image of the child’s tympanic membrane, an electronic stethoscope that can record heart and breath sounds, and a high resolution camera to capture images of the patient’s skin, throat, and eyes, then transmit them to the child’s electronic health record (EHR) in real time. Someone in the school or day care center where the child spends his day has been taught how to obtain and process a rapid strep test. The physician who has instant access to the child’s EHR can communicate “face to face” via teleconferencing with the day care providers and with the parent who is at work to discuss the diagnosis, treatment plan, and follow-up. If any of the parties feels the exchange of information is insufficiently robust, a traditional office visit can be arranged.
The challenge of assigning value to each level care still remains. Is the level 4 scenario I just described as valuable as a face to face traditional office visit? In some situations, it is likely to be more valuable than a visit with a physician in an urgent care clinic or emergency department who has never seen the patient and/or lacks access to the EHR because her computer doesn’t interface with the primary care physician’s EHR. It certainly may be more convenient for the family.
But who is going to assign value? A connected visit may be more efficient for the patient and the parent, but will it be more costly? And who is going to pay? Dr. McConnochie’s observations should be taken seriously by those folks who assign value and pay.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.